Ars Technica - Blizzard admits Diablo III is a game that ends.Just how long should players expect a game to remain fresh and exciting? Do publishers have to treat all AAA games as services that keep us constantly entertained for years or even decades? Have MMOs trained us to feel entitled to games that never actually end? These are the questions that have been circling my head after reading Blizzard's response to player complaints about the lack of compelling "endgame" content in Diablo III.

Shacknews.com - Diablo 3's poorly planned end-game.It's a shame that a company with Blizzard's pedigree couldn't have foreseen the monotony and disillusionment that could creep in less then two months after the game's release. Blizzard has some good storytellers and a fantastic animation staff. Something as intriguing as Halo 4's planned Spartan Ops episodic content would have been enough to keep me engrossed until the inevitable expansion, even if it was every month instead of every week.

In the end, I guess, players with the same mentality as die-hard MMO players will continue to populate the Diablo III servers. Diablo III was an enjoyable game for the first 80 hours.

Beamer wrote on Jul 7, 2012, 11:04:ASeven, you said " Bedroom programmers yes and by the 90s publishers already had most control over them."

I claimed indies were never more popular than the 90s. Doom, Duke3D, Quake, etc., all indie. You said I'm wrong to classifiy them as indie because they were bedroom programmers and publishers already had control over them.

Point out where I said something you didn't.

Do I need to give you a dictionary so you can read the definition of "most"? Do you have problems understanding what that word means? Or are you just baiting and being the apologist you usually are?

And yes, by the 90s there were two groups, the devs under a publisher and the devs going the shareware group. Early 90s they were even but by the mid 90s shareware was giving way to publisher control. The difference between publishers back then and now is that publishers back then knew that the best way to make devs do their best work is to keep them in the bedroom programmer environment. In fact most of these devs simply coded the game and offered it to the publisher that would give the money to publish it. And this was on the microcomputers like the C64 and Spectrum. On the consoles most, if not all devs, were under publishers or the console manufacturer.

It's as if you didn't live in the 90s and are only trying to spout bullshit and revisionism.